M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

56. Now we shall deal with the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 19,50,28,433 received from Hazira LNG Private

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

56. Now we shall deal with the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 19,50,28,433 received from Hazira LNG Private

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

56. Now we shall deal with the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 19,50,28,433 received from Hazira LNG Private

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

56. Now we shall deal with the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 19,50,28,433 received from Hazira LNG Private

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

56. Now we shall deal with the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 19,50,28,433 received from Hazira LNG Private

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

56. Now we shall deal with the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 19,50,28,433 received from Hazira LNG Private

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INT.TAXA.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

56. Now we shall deal with the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 19,50,28,433 received from Hazira LNG Private

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

56. Now we shall deal with the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 19,50,28,433 received from Hazira LNG Private

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

56. Now we shall deal with the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 19,50,28,433 received from Hazira LNG Private

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

56. Now we shall deal with the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 19,50,28,433 received from Hazira LNG Private

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No.20/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 1783/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shell Global Solutions International B.V.,, Acit, International C/O. Bsr Associates & Llp Vs Taxation-1 903, Commerce House V Ahmedabad. Nr.Vodafone House Prahaladnagar Corporation Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaics 3589 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 & 06/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2024

68,025/-. The Assessing Officer held that the aforesaid receipts qualify as fee for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act read with Article 12 of the Treaty. 17. Before us, the primary argument taken by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that under the applicable India-Netherlands treaty, the taxability of aforesaid services are governed

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No.20/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 1783/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shell Global Solutions International B.V.,, Acit, International C/O. Bsr Associates & Llp Vs Taxation-1 903, Commerce House V Ahmedabad. Nr.Vodafone House Prahaladnagar Corporation Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaics 3589 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 & 06/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2024

68,025/-. The Assessing Officer held that the aforesaid receipts qualify as fee for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act read with Article 12 of the Treaty. 17. Before us, the primary argument taken by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that under the applicable India-Netherlands treaty, the taxability of aforesaid services are governed

INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

68,27,758, and that he did not set off the same against the long term capital loss brought forward to ITA Nos.3108/A/2010, 2609/A/2012, 671/A/2014, 243/A/2015 & 370/A/2016 AYs: 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page 6 of 31 the extent of Rs 11,66,067. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee ought

INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

68,27,758, and that he did not set off the same against the long term capital loss brought forward to ITA Nos.3108/A/2010, 2609/A/2012, 671/A/2014, 243/A/2015 & 370/A/2016 AYs: 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page 6 of 31 the extent of Rs 11,66,067. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee ought

INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

68,27,758, and that he did not set off the same against the long term capital loss brought forward to ITA Nos.3108/A/2010, 2609/A/2012, 671/A/2014, 243/A/2015 & 370/A/2016 AYs: 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page 6 of 31 the extent of Rs 11,66,067. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee ought

THY ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), , AHMEDABAD vs. M & B ENGINEERING LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

vii) of the IT. Act and, therefore, the assessee was required to deduct TDS on such remittances.” 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the learned DR for the Revenue relied upon the order of the AO. 4. The learned AR for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the issue is covered by assessee’s own case

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M & B ENGINEERING LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is thus dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

vii) of the Act such payments are chargeable to tax and therefore assessee is required to deduct TDS on such remittances. 4. The assessee an Indian Company and engaged in the business of supply and erection of building on part thereof. On perusal of the Profit and Loss account for the year under consideration, it is noticed that the assessee

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

56,127 15.71% 23.14% 3 501-1000 10,87,10,735 1,21,084 33.88% 57.02% 4 1001-1500 4,